My Letter to Sen. John McCain

Dear Senator McCain,

I am writing to you about your decision to retain Terry Nelson as your campaign manager in your bid to run as the Republican Presidential candidate in 2008, in spite of the fact that his production of a controversial 2006 campaign advertisement was deemed racist. Not only that but in your defense of Nelson you have told falsehoods regarding this commercial and his involvement with it.

In your statement on the matter, you claimed...[Terry] realized it was a mistake to sign off on the ad and subsequently resigned from the group of people that approved of it.

However, Nelson in fact very publicly defended the commerical in October of 2006 and there is no indication that Nelson ever resigned from his position with the RNC.

You also told ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos that, My response is that these are good people who were doing as they were instructed. They are people who shape the message, don't dictate it.

Nelson was not doing as instructed because he oversaw the RNC unit that produced the ad.

Also, Sir you are hiring the very team who was responsible for the swiftboat ads during the 2004 Presidential campaign which at the time you called dishonest and dishonorable.

As you are well aware, Sen. McCain the present Administration have repeatedly lied to the American public in regards the Iraq war and it is imperative for our next President to be honest and straight forward with the American people.

Also with the racial problems in this country it goes without saying that it would be a terrible mistake for you to have people representing you who harbor racist attitudes.

I regret to inform you, sir that because of these flaws I see in your character and the character of the people you have representing you I will not consider you as a contender for President in 2008 nor would I vote for you. I expect the next person to hold the highest office in the land to be honest and upright, unfortunately that is not you.

With regret,

Southern Gal

My letter to John Edwards

Dear Former Senator Edwards,

I am writing to you about your decision to retain Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, in spite of the recent comments from that have been brought to light.

In your statement on the matter, you write, "I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word."

Among the comments in questions are these from Ms. Marcotte:

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

As far as I can tell, there are three possible ways to reconcile your statement with the above quoted passage:

1. Ms. Marcotte did not intend to malign my religion, but is a completely incompetent communicator. Nevertheless, you hired her as your campaign's blogger. You do not mind having incompetent people work on your campaign, and likely would not mind having incompetent people working for your administration. This is good information to have in determining whether to elect you.
2. Ms. Marcotte did intend to malign my religion, but managed to convince you that she did not. Thus, you were duped. That you are easily duped is also good information to have in deciding whether to vote for you, especially in light of mistakes made by the current administration.
3. Ms. Marcotte did intend to malign my religion, you recognize it, but you've all agreed to pretend that something obviously meant to offend was not in fact intended to offend. Ms. Marcotte is not being honest, and you're going along with it, because you would rather alienate people like me than appear "weak." Sounds a bit like our current president.

All three of these conclusions would lead me to not support your campaign for president; indeed they would lead me to most vociferously oppose it.

I understand that it is probably unreasonable for me to expect Democratic campaigns to embrace orthodox Catholic morals about secuality. But I do expect better than contempt. And when called on that contempt, I expect better than dishonesty.

Sullivan's One Trick...Exposed

I've finally deciphered Andrew Sullivan's basic rhetorical technique. It goes like this:

1. Highlight and extremist view by someone who disagrees with Sullivan on an issue. Or, portray a view as extreme that really isn't that extreme.
2. Link that view to mainstream oppposition for the item of disagreement -- it helps if he can use an umbrella label for the other side -- e.g. "Chritianist," "theocons", "spineless left," etc.
3. Use this link to marginalize all those who disagree with Sullivan on the issue

So, for example, if Sullivan were arguing against having trains to run on time, he would mention that Nazis wanted trains to run on time, then list all of the atrocities committed by the Nazis, and then say this should give some insight into what motivates those who want trains to run on time.

It's a slightly tricky dance, because Sullivan has to portray a view as extreme and contemptible while at the same time assigning it to most of his opposition. But he has mastered it through years of practice.


Some examples from the curent front page:

• In this post, Sullivan first writes
  

  
  "A National Journal poll shows that 84 percent of a selected group of influential Congressional Republicans deny that there's a human component to global warming "beyond a reasonable doubt". The international scientific community puts the likelihod at 90 percent. Whoever these Republicans are, they are not reasonable people, or even vaguely in touch with reality. "
  

  
  Whoah there -- I think denial or "skepticism" about global warming is pretty silly at this point, but Sullivan hasn't made the case he'd like you to think he has. He doesn't provide a link to the poll, but I found one, and the questions was, "Do you think it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?" Answering "no" to that question is not the same thing as denying there's a human component to global warming.
  
  It may still be silly to answer "no" to that question, but the evidence Sullivan marshals doesn't prove it. 90% certain does not equal "beyond a reasonable doubt." I wouldn't want to send someone to jail if I was only 90% sure that he was guilty. We shouldn't have gone to Iraq if there was only a 90% likelhood that Saddam had WMD.
  
  Sullivan continues...
  

  
  from the Christianist wing of the party, we are asked to believe that Ted Haggard is now "completely heterosexual." (Yes, I know Haggard's team of reparative therapists are not Republican officials; but their tight connection with the Rove machine has been integral to previous electoral strategies.) Even the "ex-gay" people don't buy Haggard's story.
  

  
  So, Sullivan admits that nobody really buys this story, but still tries to say it's typical of the Republican party's "denial." Why? Because the therapists' "tight connection with the Rove machine has been integral to previous electoral strategies." Hmm, I must have missed the campaign ads saying that gays could be converted. Maybe I need to move to a redder state.
  
  So, to summarize, Republicans are out of touch because they do not consider a 90% likelihood to be "beyond a reasonable doubt," and because part of Rove's strategy is mobilizing the Christian base, and some extreme Christian made a ridiculous claim about Ted Haggard being "completely hereosexual." Got it.
  
  
• In this post Sullivan finds it troubling that those who believe that unborn children are human persons would be less than enthusiastic about a presidential candidate (Rudy Giuliani) who would continue the legal regime that says killing them is a constitutional right.
  

  
  I couldn't disagree more. And that is the core divide in contemporary conservatism: between fundamentalism and freedom, between a politics based on divine revelation and Thomist law-making and a politics based on man-made law and individual liberty. Giuliani is running as a secular, modern conservative to run what has become a religious, theological party. His fate is going to be a fascinating insight into what American conservatism can now mean. And the Christianists are not going to put up with secular, inclusive, reality-based conservatism.
  

  
  Yikes -- we'd certainly want to be on the side of "freedom," "man-made law," "individual liberty," secularism, modernism, conservatism, secularism (again), inclusiveness, "reality-based" conservatism (again) rather than "fundamentalism," "divine revelation," "Thomist law-making," and a "religous, theological party."
  
  But is the choice so stark? I'm unconvinced.
  
  Earlier in the post, Sullivan pinpoints the point of contention with "Chrisitanists" belief in the supremacy of "natural law" over "individual liberty,"
  
  Surely, though, there is a point where natural law does indeed trump individual liberty. I doubt Sullivan would have a problem with child abuse laws, or laws against infanticide of day-old babies. The disagreement isn't between two completely irreconcilable visions of what the law should be, but a disagreement about the scope of natural law. Does the natural law say the the unborn have a right not to be killed? I say yes; Sullivan and Giuliani say no, or that they're not sure.
  
  But that won't do -- it is neccesary to portray his opponents as unreaonable extemists, and if the baby of natural law goes out with that bath water, so be it.
  
  
• Here, Sullivan takes on those of the right who are trying to smear lawyers defending terror suspects (which I agree is despicable). But it concludes with this:
  

  
  Reading Steyn's and Levin's defenses of the indefensible is a good insight into exactly how uninformed and ignorant parts of the degenerate right have become.
  

  
  Thankfully, Sullivan limits the smear to "parts of," but the general smear is there nonetheless.
  
  
• In this post, Sullivan quotes a study about "extreme fringes of American Catholicism." The pull quote:
  

  
  Few Americans defended Mel Gibson's drunken rant about the evils of the Jews. But radical traditionalist Catholics did. A three-year investigation of this subculture by the Intelligence Report has found that these Catholic extremists, including the Gibsons, may well represent the largest population of anti-Semites in the United States. Organized into a network of more than a dozen organizations, scores of websites and several extremist churches and monasteries, radical traditionalists in the U.S. are preaching anti-Semitism to as many as 100,000 followers. A few, such as the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's family, Christopher Ferrara, are even movers and shakers in important right-wing Republican circles.
  

  
  Now, I spend a fair amount of time reading Catholic bloggers, the kind that think that Pope Benedict is a liberal squish, criticize bishops if they walk by pro-choice Catholic politicians like Nancy Pelosi, etc. Suffice it to say that this represents the most conservative 5% of American Catholics. And I never saw these defenses of Mel Gibson's rant. So, this would have to be an extremist faction of an extermist faction. If this is indeed the largest popuation of anti-Semites in the United States, then this is a truly enlightened age.
  
  The final smear is a nice counter-weight to the above item, though. Whatever you think about the Schiavo case, it seems strange that lawyer who failed to keep Terry Schiavo's feeding tube on in a state with a Republican governor, and with a Republican presidient and Congress would qualify as a Republican "mover and shaker."
  

Of course, this biggest victims of this tactic were those who opposed the invasion of Iraq. They were subject to regular smears, and informed that a few extremist crazies exposed what really fueled the anti-war movement.

Hopefully, we're smart enough not to fall for it again.

Idol Hands Are The Devil's Interval

•INADVERTENT TRITONE AT REGIONAL AUDITIONS: 9 KILLED
•OUT IN THE WEST TEXAS TOWN OF EL PASO
•They Start To Sing And The Judges Will Hurl
•I KNOW, IT WAS SAN ANTONIO, BUT I LOVE THAT SONG
•By Tom (&Marty)_Robbins™

(Tuesday Night)

Some highlights:

-Seriously, guys. That's really willfully rude and cruel. Have Paula get out her crayons and glitter, hand her some poster board and glue, and have her struggle for 45 minutes while she figures out the most tactful way to address the whole "door issue". Then watch her struggle additionally with the spelling.

This iS dore lockeded now :>( pLeeze user othern of it them soory o(: THNX!!! ;<)

-Did I ever tell y'all that I have such a good ear that I can mangle our National Anthem by crudely modulating no fewer than 9 times to different keys yet still manage to land in the exact same key in which I actually started? The trick is, however, that I'm doing it on purpose. But I did like his bit when he tried to save his street cred by pretending to badmouth the judges as he exited. Our judges were equally amused. Nice to see Simon's got more than radiator fluid coursing through his veins, at least for 85 seconds out of the day.

-Turns out the mayor of Houston is, in addition to being really stupid, completely tone deaf and retarded.

-The horse farm girl was ridiculously appealing on every level. She's 16? She comported herself better in 6 minutes than Paula has in 6 years. Of course, so have all those Coca-Cola product placement riffs, so consider the source, as it were. Sorry, kids, but Simon's right, again: Pop music can be summed up in 1 word: marketing, marketing, marketing. Britney needs to fire her P.R. bitch like 2 weeks ago.

-That's the first callback I've seen in Idol history. Too bad she won't last a week in Hollywood. Gorgeous gal, but Paula and Randy's flipflopping at the whim of Simon really is starting to look like mannered backbonelessness.

-After the crazed ugly kid with facial hair management problems tries to tear the judges a collective "new one", Seacrest, without missing a beat, asks, "But you still like me, right?" This is one of the reasons why Ryan is slowly yet surely building one of the most powerful media franchises in recent memory in L.A.

-"What do you do, Randy? What do you do, man?" Uhh… He's got a point, dude. All I ever see you do is sit there like a sweaty stack of pancakes.

-"You're like a little Ruben, aren't you?" Hmm… They all look alike to you, too, Simon?

So, to sum up: Yeah, if Idol is going to continue to learn from its mistakes, it's going to have to condense the audition process into like 2 2-hour shows, because it's getting old real quick. Speaking of which, these people are complete pussies. Have you ever been to an audition at a reputable music conservatory? You wanna talk brutal and cruel? Your basic audition at The Juilliard School makes the American Idol regional tryouts look like a single mother's support group. Grow up, talentless wannabes!

Two kisses and a slap.

I'll give you something to cry about.

I’m all breathless over Cary Tennis. I’ve only recently begun to read him and I already love him. Reading Cary Tennis gives me the same feeling as reading Stephen King* or Toni Morrison* when they’re on top of their game: it’s as if you can feel the writer’s breath on your skin as he murmurs his incantations, as he mouths the spells that draw you into his arcane world: a place where your mutual secrets are kept. I go willingly. I do not have to be asked twice.

Then there are those writers whose company is unendurable. It’s that they suffer so for their art, of course, that one cannot suffer their presence much. One should feel no sympathy for these people. In fact, identifying with them in the least tempts the Muses to stop returning your calls. Here’s a sample of a pair quoted by Cary Tennis in his now-aborted “Artistic Betrayal Week.” It lasted just two tragic days…

"The creative personality is subject to betrayal by others because they/we are so ready to betray ourselves. And we are more than likely to have been the betrayer, to have caused immeasurable and unconsidered hurt to others in our quest for purity and perfection. Or in our quest for dreams and debauchery." (sniffle)

“Creative people, in whatever field or context they work, have the gift of being able to glimpse, discern and interpret information outside of the paradigm. This gift will always cause pain because that sense of "vision" allows them to see what others cannot. The gift will always cause pain because it tends to create isolation. Creative people live in worlds that are not sensible to most of those around them.” (sob)

In other excellent weirdness: I discovered Hellcat’s Blog when I was over at the odd neighbor (and was struck by the coincidence of the profile name and my recent post). Like WikiFray, it's a group blog, but that's where the resemblance stops. I’m not altogether sure what they’re doing over there. They seem to be engaged in either a free-style public art project or some free-style insanity.

A sample:

Which of course means that now we have to kill you
Murder?
Mass grave
Exit stage right
Sing the last stave
Suicide pact for the dawning dead
Whisper the cats in the back of your head
Here is what you must needs do
Lose your humanity, join the few
Last light?
Dawn the morn, dead
Zombie cats in the back of your head
Sing the fish from the deep
With mouths gaping wide
They'll rip your guts
From out your side
And play with them like yarn...

I like it. Of course I invited them to the Cat Off.

It would be an interesting exercise to map the social rules of their, umm, project


* Yeah, I heard the groans down there in the back. You can bite me.

A General Model of the Senate

Dickerson bemoans the Senate, which is in fact merely performing its constitutional function: to obstruct.


Our wise founders knew that if you actually got a government to do things, disaster would result. Look at China for God's sake. But in their infinite wisdom and love of paradox, the founders also knew that nothing kills good intentions like a bureaucracy, and so, voila!, the Senate -- a bureaucracy in the heart of government designed to keep government from functioning.

[Skipping paragraph about how George Lucas is a prophet.]

Sadly, the advent of the new Obergruppenfuhrer presidency means that one wing of government is actually doing things, hence the most recent crisis. To impede (actually, not impede, merely insult. Rats. Let me start again) to insult the president, the Senate now has to act in a coordinated way.

Which, shockingly, they have. The workings of the Senate are more finely tuned than any ballet. To understand the subtlety of this august institution, one must merely keep in mind the fundamental elegance of its organizing principle -- to obstruct. The chamber is designed to always favor the following outcomes:

1. All sides claim moral victory.

2. All sides claim their enemies are responsible for obstruction (which is always true because...)

3. Nothing ever happens.

The Senate is America's greatest incubater of empty rhetoric.

Er, next to the House.



Repost from Politics Fray in reference to Dickerson. I don't know why I bother over there.

In The News

Some things in the news I've been thinking about

Tibetan Brain Science

I heard a radio interview with a science reporter from the Wall Street Journal, talking about recent experiments in neuroscience. Various bits reeked of bogosity to me, but I thought I'd post to see if somebody could actually confirm or deny this suspician.

Apparently there have been a lot of studies of brain plasticity. That is (according to the radio interview), the question of whether physical actions can affect the size, growth, activity of the brain. In one example, the reporter claimed that violinists who practice for hours actually cause a certain sector of their brain to get larger. My apologies for not getting the details. See Zen and the Art of Neuroscience.

The "Zen" part of the story is that the reporter claims that a certain form of Tibetan Meditation (first august alarm: Zen is very, very different from Tibetan Buddhism), in which the monks contemplate compassion, can lead a different part of the brain to expand, and this chunk is supposedly associated with a sense of happiness and well-being (second august alarm: the key to wisdom is found in the Orient!). How they control for meditation as opposed to vegetarian diet, various monkly activities, or living as refugees away from the threat of genocide is but one of many possible questions.

But I know zilch about neuroscience. So feel free to enlighten me.

Italian Soccer

Italian soccer clubs have long had a symbiotic relationship with the more frightening segment of their fan base, the "ultra" -- fanatic groups who sell merchandise and riot outside (or sometimes inside) football stadiums. Recently, one of these groups surrounded and threw a bomb a policeman's car, killing the cop inside.

As of right now, the consequence has been cancellation of Serie A (the equivalent of Premier or Major League) for the weekend.

In fact, the entire season should be cancelled. It will take that long to refurbish Italian stadiums for better safety and security, to ensure that football clubs have severed their relations with ultra groups, and for the nation as a whole to discover life without football. This comes in the wake of a match fixing scandal last season. It's a mess, and anything less than loss of the season will mean that the powers that be are not interested in fixing the problem.

Friendly Fire

I hate the war. The latest in a series of scandals is a tape of an incident in which two U.S. pilots bombed a British tank in 2003. The tape was played on the BBC this morning. If anything, it confirms that the incident was a horrible mistake -- the U.S. pilots radioed to make sure that there were no allied forces in the area, and when they later found out that had killed a British soldier, they show immediate and deep remorse.

The problem is that the U.S. refused to release the tape to the British soldier's widow, and in fact both the U.S. and Great Britain denied that such a tape existed, a denial now hard to swallow in view of the fact that a transcript appeared in the tabloid Sun and played on the Beeb.

Our government seems determined to exascerbate the situation for our troops, to spit on our allies, to lie about the measures necessary to prosecute the war, and to mislead the American public about what constitutes national security and what constitutes ass-covering. The administration has so many asses, that may be all they are doing anymore.

Off Topic

Super Bowl, immigration, web security flaw that you Must Read Now, and the global warming debate

• Pretty ugly Super Bowl. I agree with the commentators who said that the Bears offense as designed played right into the Colts' strength.
  
  I think Grossman has to be running things according to script to be succcessful. If he gets pressured and has to improvise, he's in trouble, as we saw. And the Colts are good at getting after the passer.
  
  Not sure if this is something Grossman can improve on or if this is what he's destined to be. If the latter, I don't think you can win a Super Bowl with him
  
  
• Kaus says immingration enforcement does not mean mass deportation. One way around this would be to "grandfather in" existing undocumented workers, and only require documentation for new employees. But what if a "grandfathered" undocumented worker changes jobs?
  

  
  If existing illegals tried to switch to a new employer they might get caught (though Congress could give them, say, a year to find a decent employer before an enforcement system took effect). Actually, if the new enforcement system worked, they would get caught. Which means they wouldn't try, no? They'd either stay with their existing employer, or try to work in the underground economy, or give up and "self-deport."
  
  Emphasis added
  

  
  Presumably, employers would be privy to the knowledge that undocumented workers now are bound to their current employers. Wouldn't tilt the scales of this relationship, already ridiculously tipped in facor of employers, even further in that direction? What incentive would an employer have to pay these people a decent wage or provide good working conditions? There would be no market for these people's skills.
  
  I don't think this is merely a "complication" that can be resolved with some legislative elbow grease. It's a basic structural problem.
  
  
• I love stories like these. The Slashdot teaser is headlined "Study Finds Bank of America SiteKey is Flawed."
  
  Flawed? Yikes! I have a B of A account -- are people getting in? Or is it sweeps month on the web, too?
  
  No -- the way the system works is you choose an image. When you log into the bank, you enter your ID, but not your password. Only after the site serves up another page with your selected image should you enter your password, since the the site will have proven that it is B of A and not a spoof.
  
  It turns out most users enter their password even if their image doesn't show up. Thus, it's flawed.
  
  Which I suppose is true -- a piece of software is only successful if it is used to solve the problem for which it was designed. For most users, SiteKey isn't increasing security, thus it's flawed.
  
  But it's certainly not introducing any security problem, and does work correctly for those who utilize it properly. I'd call that win.
  
  If you read the tech press enough, you get used to the security Cassandras -- those who lament how little attention is paid to IT security, how vulnerable networks are, how little repsect security professionals get, etc. I understand -- if something goes wrong, it's their ass, so they may as well cover it.
  
  But there is a trade-off between security and convenience. I don't want to have to carry around an RSA token for everyone with whom I want to do business online. I suspect most others don't, either. I'm willing to accept this "flaw" in SiteKey for the convenience of being able to pay all my bills in about 5 minutes. And I don't think I'm alone.
  
  
• Posts like this make me wonder what, exactly, it would take for, say, b-a to change his mind about global warming. There are different levels of belief on global warming:
  
  1. Global warming is happening.
  2. Warming will cause some catastrophic events if it continues.
  3. Human activity contributes to global warming.
  4. Changes in human activity can mitigate global warming.
  5. It is a moral imperative that governments act to compel these changes in behavior.
  
  I'd put myself between 4 and 5. b-a would probably put herself around 1. Most folks seem to be either 1's or 5's.
  
  I think we've reached the point in this debate where there's not going to be much movement betweeen the groups, b-a's post notwithstanding. It's hard to imagine what news would come out to which b-a would respond, "Geesh; I guess I was wrong -- warming is happening, and we better get on it." Likewise, it's hard to imagine what news would make Al Gore tell everyone to chill out. The alarmist camp seems to be bigger, but the no problem camp seems to big to dismiss. So where do we go from here?
  

Tom Cruise Is A Great Actor, Part II

•RISKY BUSINESS STAR TAPPED AS SCIENTOLOGY'S MESSIAH, TRAVOLTA TOTALLY PISSED AT PASSOVER
•Creepy Church/Cult Embraces Even Creepier Celebrity
•INSANE CATHOLIC WIFE CONVERTS TO RAELIANISM TO CREATE EVEN PLAYING FIELD FOR ULTIMATELY FUCKED-UP-IN-THE-HEAD KIDS
•and the j-man wept
•By switters™

Man. Just when you didn't think chez Cruise could get any nuttier, turns out Tom's the 1st coming for the L. Ron Hubbard crowd. I presume Isaac Hayes will be taking care of the role of The Artist Formerly Known As John The Beheaded Locust Eater.

Tom brings most of this stuff on himself. It's like he's got this innate ability to say the exact wrong thing at the exact right time. Remember the Brooke Shields dust up on, that's right, Access Hollywood, re: pills, pills, pills, and because of said pills she was a terrible, irresponsible mother and a head case to boot? That post-partum depression thingie was all in her head, I suppose. Makes good sense.

Anyways, my horribly troubled boy can act.

Collateral. Flawless performance. He even outclasses Foxx. Subtle, mannered where appropriate, athletic, graceful, creepy (Hi, Tom!), and, most importantly, deliberate. (More on "deliberate" later.)

War of the Worlds. Takes an otherwise throwaway role in an s/fx-driven movie and gives depth o'plenty to a questionable plot in between all of Dakota Fanning's eardrum-splittable screeching. That's quite the accomplishment.

Minority Report. Great movie that Steve tries to ruin on no fewer than 3 specific occasions. Anderton in the hands (head?) of anyone else would have been a co-star to the drug addicted narcissism of The Silly. (E.g., Will Smith in I, Robot.) In other words, where Smith laughs goofily in the face of supposed danger, Tom sneers. Sorry, folks: It works.

(In case you don't know it yet, y'all are watching a film legend in the making. OT: Is this eerily reminiscent of my posts building up to the Mork & Mindy movie? That's what I thought.)

Eyes Wide Shut. Yeah, this won't make me many allies. Great movie. But you have to watch it at least 5 times (and at least 1 of those 5 times baked out of your mind) to realize it. Great, great, great. Pay particular attention to Dr. Harford's scene with the hooker who tells him her roommate got tested positive for HIV. Apology accepted.

Magnolia. Nope, this one gets its own post entirely.

Vanilla Sky. 3 words: Fearlessness as acting. (!!! That's actually 3 words! Sorry, guys, I'm a bit off this week. I'll get better.)

Syriana. Here's one of the many things that make Tom great: If he'd been in Syriana, he would've totally and completely ruined the movie, but in a really good way, no matter how small the role. There are very few people you can say that about! (Jack Nicholson, The Departed)

Interview With The Vampire. Ahh, yes. Tom's "gay phase". Hey, we all go through it. Let me just tell you this: I'll believe a man can fly when everyone else realizes that Brad Pitt is really only good in supporting roles.

Born on the Fourth of July. Utterly captured that "wheelie" Ron Kovic's anger, rage, denial, and depression. And that was just in the rehabilitation scenes. Pretty much scoops Gary Senise's Lieutenant Dan, if you ask me. Sucka! [cough]

The Color of Money. Tommy single-handedly delivered Paul Newman's Oscar on a silver platter. And the coif! That 'do will be featured in the Museum of Hair and Makeup Breakthroughs in Film right in between Tony Manero's and William Wallace's (whose own hair was based loosely on Robert Plant's in The Song Remains the Same, interestingly enough).

Cocktail. Look at him go! Make mine a double, Bry Man!

Rain Man, Taps, The Firm, A Few Good Men, Jerry (Fuckin') Maguire, Far and Away? The question becomes: Who hasn't Tomboy worked with? Read 'em & weep, pinheads.

Come on, he's a great actor. Everybody's thinking it. I'm the only one with enough guts to say it out loud. Looks like "6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon" has been replaced by "3 Degrees of Tom Cruise".
=
Coming soon: Tom Cruise Is A Great Actor, Part III

•MAGNOLIA PRE-MELTDOWN FORSHADOWS OPRAH COUCH BOUNCING
•Collateral Damages Gay Myth Again
•IF I HAD A NICKLE FOR EVERY TIME HE HAD A NICOLE (WHAT, I'D HAVE 3 [NICKELS]?)